Here are some facts about West Virginia's voting record

[RoseMead]

in the presidential elections.

I've been playing on this nifty site (thanks to DUer mtf80123):
http://www.270towin.com/

What I've discovered is that since 1900, West Virginia has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate more often than we've voted fot the Republican. Here's the breakdown of WV presidential votes:

1900 - William McKinley (R)
1904 - Theodore Roosevelt (R)
1908 - William H. Taft (R)
1912 - Woodrow Wilson (D)
1916 - Charles E. Hughes (R)
1920 - Warren G. Harding (R)
1924 - Calvin Coolidge (R)
1928 - Herbert C. Hoover (R)
1932 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
1936 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
1940 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
1944 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
1948 - Harry S. Truman (D)
1952 - Adlai Stevenson (D)
1956 - Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
1960 - John F. Kennedy (D)
1964 - Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
1968 - Hubert H. Humphrey (D)
1972 - Richard M. Nixon (R) (When apparently the entire country voted the same, except for D.C. and Massachusetts. Yikes!)
1976 - Jimmy Carter (D)
1980 - Jimmy Carter (D) (One of only seven states that voted for Carter that year)
1984 - Ronald Reagan (R)
1988 - Michael S. Dukakis (D) (My first election)
1992 - William J. Clinton (D)
1996 - William J. Clinton (D)
2000 - George W. Bush (R)
2004 - George W. Bush (R)


So, since 1900 WV has voted for the Democrat 15 times, and for the Republican 12 times. Of the 12 times the state went to the Republican, seven were prior to 1932. Since 1932, West Virginia has voted for the Democratic candidate in 14 out of 19 elections.

Also in looking at the last 10 years, you can see that West Virginia voted for the Democratic presidential candidate 6 times. Two states have the same record: Washington and Pennsylvania. Seven states - Hawaii, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts - and D.C have a better record of voting for the Democrat over the last 10 years. This leaves *41 states* with a worse record of voting for the Democratic candidate in the presidential elections.

Just thought this might be interesting to those who think of West Virginia as a purely red state.

[rpannier]

1. I would throw in a few other things to ponder

1. In 1900 and 1904, the Republicans were still the liberal reforming party. I'd have been a Republican and a Teddy supporter in 1904.

2. Voting against Wilson in 1916 was a good thing. The guy was a borderline fascist.

3. They voted for Harding for the same reason many states did -- hatred for woodrow. Harding was no prize, but Cox had a few question marks associated with him and he had the millstone of woodrow around his neck.

4. When people mention the lack of university education, I remind them that there are many great and successful Americans without a university degree, two of which are Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman.

[RoseMead]

3. Thanks for that information

especially the clarification on the early 20th century Republicans. They are not the same party they once were.

Here's the breakdown from the beginning of our statehood until 1900:

1864 - Abraham Lincoln (R)
1868 - Ulysses S. Grant (R)
1872 - Ulysses S. Grant (R)
1876 - Samuel J. Tilden (D)
1880 - Winfield S. Hancock (D)
1884 - Grover Cleveland (D)
1888 - Grover Cleveland (D)
1892 - Grover Cleveland (D)
1896 - William McKinley (R)

Five out of nine for Democrats, and one of the 4 Republicans was Abraham Lincoln.

[crimsonblue]

20. Wilson didn't run in 1920, fyi, and he was no fascist...

he even had a graceful exit plan in place in case he lost the 1916 election -- make Hughes SecState and then both Pres and VP resign so that there was not a lame duck during a time of great turmoil (WW1). If the world had listened to Wilson and his "League of Nations", there is much speculation among historians that WW2 never would have happened, at least not to same extent.

[rpannier]

22. And you should note, I never said he ran in 20

I said, he was the focus of the 20 election.
Harding was no prize, but Cox had a few question marks associated with him and he had the millstone of woodrow around his neck.

Woodrow Wilson was a millstone. The country was tired of him.

As many historians on California history have noted his people engaged in voter theft in order to win California in 1916.
He had people arrested for being subversives -- in some cases, this included people who were highly critical of his administration.
He took away the postal status of newspapers that were critical of his administration, qrguing that we were at war and sacrafices had to be made.

[crimsonblue]

21. i forgot to mention

that his diplomatic policies are still the standard in Europe and his views are considered fundamental to any modern approach to foreign policy.

[dkf]

2. Biggest thing WV doesn't like about Dems is our environmental stance

Are we willing to give that up to win WV?

I hope not.

[RoseMead]

4. I don't think we should have to either

Because our environmental stance is one of the things I like about the Democratic party. And WV is wrong on that account.

I'm just weary of seeing people on DU say WV is a red state, and that there are no "real Democrats" here. There are plenty. We have some issues and concerns that are different from other parts of the country, but we're still Democrats, and have been for a good while now.

[dkf]

5. No, WV is voting its economic interests and those interests

include coal.

I can see how, in an area that is already struggling, the thought of the feds cracking down on their livelihood would scare the bejesus about of a people. Yet I'm not sure what we can do to solve this dilemma. Global warming measures will not be good for WV.

It seems to me that WV needs a whole lot of really high tech ideas fast to turn coal into a non-polluting, non greenhouse gas emitting source of energy. They need mega brain power ASAP.

[RoseMead]

8. Well when I said our we had different concerns

coal would definitely be one of them. And yes, the idea of environmental restrictions on coal is scary to lots of people here, no doubt. That's also one of the reason there isn't more of a fight here against mountaintop removal. There are people and groups in the state who oppose the practice, but I get the feeling that most people see it as just an unpleasant cost of doing business.

[Jim Lane]

16. The limits on a high-tech fix

You write, "It seems to me that WV needs a whole lot of really high tech ideas fast to turn coal into a non-polluting, non greenhouse gas emitting source of energy." That would be great but it may well be impossible.

Coal is a source of energy because it's composed primarily of carbon. The underlying chemical equation is that carbon plus oxygen equals carbon dioxide plus energy.

Coal proponents are talking about "carbon sequestration" as the solution -- go ahead and burn the coal to get the energy but somehow prevent the carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Most environmentalists consider this a scam.

[rpannier]

6. I don't think it's that cut-and-dry

They see it as an environmental policy that will cost them their job and the jobs of their friends and family.

We have a habit of blaming them (for being stupid -- which they aren't) and the republikkans (for lying -- which they are)

But, we've done a pretty piss-poor job of explaining what we'll do to get them retraining, to provide them an income during the transition.
When we talk about forcing companies to burn cleaner, the companies threaten to move their factories south.
Then they'll be out of a job and out of their house.
The attitude of some of my friends is just as idiotic and myopic as republikkan attitudes -- Well it will make the country better and they will eventually find new jobs.
With all due respect, that's not a solution, that's wishful thinking.

I don't live in WV. Never had, never will -- probably.
But, until we do something about the crappy safety-net structure in the US, people will vote to keep their jobs and a paycheck for themselves and their families.

We need to provide real solutions for people who have jobs and could lose them as a result of these kinds of changes.
We needtolook at these issues from their perspective.

on edit:
I retract some of my attitude in the post. Iread your follow up post and I agree with you.

[dkf]

7. I wouldn't trust the government to retrain me and help create a new decent paying job for me

especially if I am older and less educated.

Its like asking me to believe in Santa Claus.

I could hope the Federal Govt would do these things if I am currently out of a job. But to vote in a way that may force me to give up a job in the hopes the Govt will find me a new one is crazy.

[rpannier]

9. Agreed

But (and you noted it in your reply to the previous poster) they are voting their economic interests and that's natural.

I don't blame them.
I live in Korea and have for over a decade. Talk to people working in mills about the need for change and they see themselves out on the streets/subway begging for cash.

It's a tough situation and there's no easy answer.

I would like to see more discussion (and understanding) of the complexity of this issue (and other issues)

Unfortunately we've become so accustomed to bumper-sticker slogansand cheap shot witticisms that serious solutions are blithely pushed aside as being 'elitist' and/or unworkable

I find this accusation humorous coming from republikkans as they are the party that blames a bad economy on "7 year olds outof their cars"

In the end, the US in general and WV specifically need leadership that looks at long range solutions to serious problems.
Closing every coal facilty and hope that some new industry takes its place is idiotic (This is the scrub scenario for how the economy will get better -- sure we've lost high paying jobs, but somethings always come along in the past to take its place)

I know my post is long winded and probably annoying to follow.
But, I do feel poor and undereducated people have gotten screwed by the government (by both republikkans and Democrats) and real solutions need to be put in place.
This would require a cycle similar to FDR, where we ran everything for 10+ years and were not at the mercy of a corporate congress.

[RoseMead]

11. Yes!

"This would require a cycle similar to FDR, where we ran everything for 10+ years and were not at the mercy of a corporate congress."

No coincidence that WV voted for FDR four times. (Along with most of the rest of the country, since everybody was hurting at that point.)

I appreciate what you've said. The issue is complicated. And frankly, I think alot of people in this state just really have little faith in our own ability to change our economic lot for the better, because things have been rotten here for so long. When I was in high school in the 80's, our teachers made a point of advising us to leave the state as soon as possible after graduation, because they saw little future for us here. The idea that we might do better to stay home and fight to make a better future for our state was almost ludicrous; people here aren't used to thinking on such hopeful terms. That's a big, big change we need to make.

[OnionPatch]

17. I think it's a little more specific than that.

I don't believe West Virginians want to see the environment despoiled, but they have to have a way to make a living and coal has been it. There really is virtually no other (blue collar) work available there that pays as well. If so many of them didn't have to depend on coal mining for a living, I don't think they would be so against environmental protections at all. Our leaders need to find a way to make good on their promises to bring jobs to these rust-belt areas or the people there will never have the option to choose protection of the environment.

[Aloha Spirit]

18. The word "stance" makes me uncomfortable, since the Larry Craig story broke. Eww

[Vinca]

10. I think there's way too much angst over West Virginia.

Bottom line, Obama didn't campaign there. I don't know why he decided to cede it to Hillary, but he did. If the Democratic ticket campaigns there, I'm sure they'll have a good chance of winning it.

[RoseMead]

12. He'll be back

if he wins the nomination, I have no doubt. And I'll be working to promote his candidacy in the meantime. :)

And while I think Hillary's chances of winning the nomination at this point are slim to none, I'll also work for her if she's the nominee.

BTW, did you catch the video clip of Rahall calling McCain "John McBush?" He's my congressman! lol

[Vinca]

13. I didn't see it . . . that's great! nt

[RoseMead]

15. It may well have been unintentional

but it was funny as hell:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/13/the-truth-will-out-rep-nick-rahall-says-the-dems-committed-to-beating-john-mcbush/

Good ol Nick Joe. I regularly disagree with him, but this was one statement I can get behind.

[dkf]

14. Its more than agonizing over a loss...

Reading about WVs situation is very eye opening and rather sobering.

Frankly, it would mean more to me if Obama thought he would lose WV yet still tries to figure out how to better the situation there. I am not into pandering and don't think that finding solutions should be based on whether we can win a state.

[rpannier]

23. I thought it was odd he didn't show up much

He outspent her 3:1 in West Virginia.
Maybe he's laying the foundation for the GE.

[democracy1st]

19. Bush 2000 & 2004-Totally the result of the rightwing propaganda machine